We're far from done with the Oracle v. Google lawsuit. The search giant has responded to the lawsuit, and Miguel De Icaza has provided a very interesting insight into the case. His report has been confirmed by James Gosling, known as the father of Java who left Sun right after the merger. Icaza speculates that the potential to monetise on Java by suing Google was pitched by Jonathan Schwartz during Sun's sales talks with Oracle. Oh boy.

Google is NOT calling it java. The dispute is about the VM and the framework and it is called Dalvik. The programming language is Java, but programming languages cannot be protected. A specific implementation of a VM, and specifications for such a VM in order to receive a license to use a trademark can be protected. However, Google is not calling Dalvik for Java. The programming language is not the issue here. The VM is. So stop claiming Google is calling Dalvik for Java.

Dalvik is a Java-like VM but is not Java. Just like Amiga OS 4 is not Unix despite having AmiCygnix. Dalvik is less compatible with Java than Wine is with Windows. Do you call Wine for Windows - or GNUstep for NeXTSTEP? I'm looking forward to your answer.

There is no trademark violation since Google isn't calling Dalvik for Java. It is called Dalvik and is only somewhat compatible at source code level (with Java SE - not Java ME) and not at all at bytecode level.

There is no copyright violation for none of the Sun/Oracle code can be found in Dalvik. It is a fork of Apache Harmony.

The only thing left is violation of software patents. We'll see about that.
I did not go at a tangent of Dalvik isn't Java. I merely corrected the OP. You tried to claim that Dalvik is Java, which it is not. Nor does Google claim it is, despite your repeated lies. So no, Dalvik is not a non-standard Java. It is not Java at all.

Your blog is irrelevant and only proves that you really are a jerkface. But that's what you wanted to prove, right?